List custom cost files in Datadog to manage and analyze cloud spending data for monitoring and optimization purposes.
List the Custom Costs files.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_cost_custom_costs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'files' means in this context. The description is minimal and lacks necessary operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Custom Costs files' are, what format they're in, how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool with zero structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since there are none. It appropriately doesn't mention parameters, aligning with the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List the Custom Costs files' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Custom Costs files'), providing a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks specificity about scope or format, and doesn't distinguish from potential sibling tools like 'get_cost_custom_cost' (singular) or other cost-related tools in the extensive sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cost_custom_cost' (singular) or other cost-related tools, leaving the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.